Parliament should be less supine in the face of the government's desire to legislate. So says the Hansard Society, the UK's leading independent political research charity, in an analysis of lawmaking launched at the House of Commons on Tuesday night.

Readers of recent blogs will not be surprised that I agree. Making Better Law, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, is both a well-researched account of what has gone wrong and a detailed blueprint for reform.

Not only should there be greater pre-legislative scrutiny of government bills, the report recommends, there should also be a new legislative standards committee to act as a parliamentary gateway.

All governments have the right to implement their legislative programme, the Hansard Society acknowledges. But this must be "qualified by the right of parliament to decline to scrutinise legislation that is not in a fit state for consideration".

This is heady stuff: the sort of thing that Sir Humphrey would have described as "very brave, minister".

So we can be sure that the powerful but shadowy permanent secretary to the chief whip – the "usual channels" in parliamentary jargon – will seek to neutralise it, according to Graham Allen, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons political and constitutional reform committee.

Speaking at the report's launch in parliament, Allen pointed out that it would be seen as a threat to the executive. And, as he knew from bitter experience, back-benchers who try to take on the government soon find themselves "squashed in its tender caresses".

What, then, are the chances that the government will cede greater powers to MPs? Sir George Young, leader of the Commons, said the message of the Hansard Society report was that parliament should be more muscular and assertive.

"Subject to the proviso that the government can get its programme through parliament," he continued, "I agree with that."

But Allen did not accept Young's important premise, arguing that it was for the Commons – not the government – to decide whether ministers should get their proposals enacted.

Young is seen as something of a reformer by Conservative standards. But, although his job title suggests he is someone elected to represent MPs, the leader of the Commons is a government minister. His responsibility, along with that of the government whips and their civil servants, is to get the government's legislative programme through parliament.

This would matter less if we needed all the laws that ministers choose to hang on their "Christmas tree" bills.

"Legislation is perceived as a sign of action and therefore is a powerful public relations measure," the report says.
The Hansard Society was told that there were instances when the government's legislative programme committee had approached ministries such as the Education department to demand a new bill merely "because educational themes were a key aspect of the government's strategic focus".

From a political point of view, the passage of a bill through to Royal Assent "is viewed as the primary test of a minister's political virility, regardless of whether the legislation ever achieves its stated aims or results in damaging unforeseen consequences".

By then, the minister is likely to have moved on – though neither David Blunkett nor his critics appear to have forgotten some of the mistakes he made as Home Secretary in areas such as extradition and criminal justice.

Greater advance consultation is one of the ways in which the government could ensure a smooth passage for its legislation. But there is no point in consulting on options that have already been ruled out.

Governments should come clean on which elements of a proposal can be changed and which are fixed, the report argues. "While this will not eradicate complaints, a more open and honest approach may help generate a more productive atmosphere and better results."

As the Hansard Society report concludes, the lawmaking process in Britain is "deeply flawed". But the chances of ministers voting for the end of untrammelled legislative powers seem as remote as turkeys voting for the end of next week.

Joshua Rozenberg is a freelance legal writer, commentator and broadcaster